Do/Should gays go to hell?

[§outh§tar]

"you are terribly naive"

It's so shameful to see such rampant ignorance. Can you not tell I was being sarcastic in my writing? If not look again.

 

[James R]

okinrus:

But many gays were abused when they were children or suffer psychological problems.

I am wondering:

1. How many gay people do you know personally?
2. How many of those would you say have psychological problems?
3. How many were abused when they were children?

Let me give you my answers to the same question:

1. Too many to work out an exact number.
2. None. Well, perhaps one or two, but such problems are certainly no more prevalent than in the heterosexual population, as far as I can tell.
3. None.

 

[James R]

Southstar:

I have some questions for you, too.

How many gay people do you know personally?

By my understanding as a Christian, I believe the eternal Father does not create gays. No one was born gay. For it is written,

"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning. Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures"

You seem to be saying that being gay is bad, and therefore cannot be a gift from God. Am I correct? How do you know being gay is bad? Did God tell you that?

So you see, do gay people DESERVE hell because they chose such a thing, or are they going to hell BECAUSE the Father has DULY cursed them so.

Where did the Father duly curse them?


Greco:

One good test of the theory is to observe the animal world such as the ape world where homosexuality is practiced.

I don't understand. How is this relevant, in your opinion?

Another observation has been made with the study of twins. If one twin is gay there's a high chance the other twin is gay.

Again, I don't see the relevance.

What else can I say to convince you of natures follies?

It's just you calling homosexuality a "folly". That's just your opinion. Nature is totally neutral about homosexuality. It is actually quite common in nature.

Your argument is equivalent to saying that nature made a mistake when it gave human beings two eyes instead of three.

 

[okinrus]

1. How many gay people do you know personally?
2. How many of those would you say have psychological problems?
3. How many were abused when they were children?

Let me give you my answers to the same question:

1. Too many to work out an exact number.
2. None. Well, perhaps one or two, but such problems are certainly no more prevalent than in the heterosexual population, as far as I can tell.
3. None.

I'm not sure how you would answer 3 unless if you are a pschologist. It seems that this type of information is often times not reported to authorities. However, research into child abuse and later sexuality will prove that those who are abused typically show a number of indentity problems.

Whether gays have pschological problems is difficult because it based upon your definition of a psychological problem. However, for the gays that I know, while still functional, friendly members of society, have something wrong with them. And while I do say that everyone has something wrong with them, in this case it seems a direct result of psychology that makes someone gay. For instance, the female like voice associated with some suggest that it might be some sort pschological complex.

 

[heart]

Okin,

I'm not sure how you would answer 3 unless if you are a pschologist. It seems that this type of information is often times not reported to authorities. However, research into child abuse and later sexuality will prove that those who are abused typically show a number of indentity problems.

I know many homosexuals, Okin. There isn't one that I know that has been abused as a child to make them homosexual. Further, I also have heterosexual friends, which there are a couple who were abused physically as well as sexually, yet they are still heterosexual.

However, for the gays that I know, while still functional, friendly members of society, have something wrong with them. And while I do say that everyone has something wrong with them, in this case it seems a direct result of psychology that makes someone gay. For instance, the female like voice associated with some suggest that it might be some sort pschological

I'm very curious as to what you mean "have something wrong with them". I find it funny how you single out the man who has the "female like voice" yet, totally overlook those who don't and are still homosexual. Yes, there are some women out there who also portray men like characteristics as well, but then there are those of us who do not. I might add that there are some women I know who are very masculine looking and happily married to their husbands. Would you consider them to have some sort of psychological problem as well? Are you saying people who are different must have some psychological complex?

 

[Greco]

It's just you calling homosexuality a "folly". That's just your opinion. Nature is totally neutral about homosexuality. It is actually quite common in nature.

I'm not quite sure where you stand on this issue. As a secularist I dont believe homosexuality is a sin or a condition that automatically sends you to hell. My argument is that nature isnt perfect in reproducing offspring such as the example of severely deformed children. Something went wrong in the DNA instructions.

Now let's take the example of nature making an error on a male infant: The child make come out totally normal( what we except) or have various physical or mental errors. I consider homosexuality an error because even though the child is physically a male, some hormonal switch didnt work properly to make this male child totally male. Mentaly he behaves in an effeminate manner.

I consider homosexuality a normal natural occurence that effects approximately 5-10 % of our population.

Your argument is equivalent to saying that nature made a mistake when it gave human beings two eyes instead of three.

I believe the evolutionary process is blind. Nature probably made animals with three eyes but the animals found the trait inneficient and dint get a chance to reproduce. We have two eyes because it works well, any other variation doesnt.

There's is a also a theory that states when population density increases homosexuality increases as a safety brake to exploding populations.

 

[okinrus]

I know many homosexuals, Okin. There isn't one that I know that has been abused as a child to make them homosexual. Further, I also have heterosexual friends, which there are a couple who were abused physically as well as sexually, yet they are still heterosexual.

I think that's unlikely. I'm not just considering sexual abuse though.

I'm very curious as to what you mean "have something wrong with them". I find it funny how you single out the man who has the "female like voice" yet, totally overlook those who don't and are still homosexual.

It's more a sense that they've been exposed to some type of trauma.

Yes, there are some women out there who also portray men like characteristics as well, but then there are those of us who do not.

I don't know. I think you can tell alot about someone just from their voice, even my own voice seems to change for no apparent reason. I think our speech is sometimes an unconcience projection of ourselves.

I might add that there are some women I know who are very masculine looking and happily married to their husbands. Would you consider them to have some sort of psychological problem as well? Are you saying people who are different must have some psychological complex?

It's possible.

 

[heart]

I think that's unlikely. I'm not just considering sexual abuse though.

Exactly what you mean by unlikely? That the heterosexuals I know who were abused physically and sexually maintained their sexual orientation, or that you find it unlikely that a homosexual hasn't been abused?

It's more a sense that they've been exposed to some type of trauma.

Do you have valid sources to back this up or is this your own theory?

I'd like to leave you with a couple of quotes:

In December 1973, the American Psychiatric Association's Board of Trustees deleted homosexuality from its official nomenclature of mental disorders, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Second Edition (DSMII). The action was taken following a review of the scientific literature and consultation with experts in the field. For a mental condition to be considered a psychiatric disorder, it should either regularly cause emotional distress or regularly be associated with clinically significant impairment of social functioning. These experts found that homosexuality does not meet these criteria.

The Board recognized that a significant portion of gay and lesbian people were clearly satisfied with their sexual orientation and showed no signs of psychopathology. It was also found that homosexuals were able to function effectively in society, and those who sought treatment most often did so for reasons other than their homosexuality.

Here's your trauma:

Bias-related incidents, arising from racism, sexism, intolerance based on religion, ethnicity, and national/tribal origin, and anti-gay and lesbian prejudice are widespread in society and continue to be a source of social disruption, individual suffering and trauma. These incidents are ubiquitous and occur in both urban and rural areas. Such hate-based incidents consist of acts of violence or harassment. These incidents result in emotional and physical trauma for individuals, as well as stigmatization of affected groups. Ethnic and cultural biases, vividly manifest in bias-related incidents, serve to frustrate the basic human need for dignity, resulting in despair and hopelessness among the victims that ultimately affect the whole nation

All quotes can be found here: http://www.psych.org/public_info/homose~1.cfm

 

[§outh§tar]

Southstar:

I have some questions for you, too.

How many gay people do you know personally?
zilch.

You seem to be saying that being gay is bad, and therefore cannot be a gift from God. Am I correct? How do you know being gay is bad? Did God tell you that?

How did you infer that I was saying being gay is bad? If I had a reasonable stance, I wouldn't have posted this. Quite honestly, I am quite ignorant on these topics that is why I posted here to hear the opinion of other's. I am from Ghana, West Africa and before coming to America, I had NEVER EVER EVER heard of gays. Our Ghanaian society has no gays, or does not openly speak of homosexuals. Either way, I had ABSOLUTELY no idea what a gay was before coming to America so I cannot rightly say that being gay is "bad" or "good" or "normal" or whatever... Apart from the remarks friends at school made, the only other place I really "learned" about gays was in church. I'm sorry therefore if I wrongfully began the discussion with such a bias. I'm trying to figure things out for myself since things in America are VERY different from things back home.. Thanks for taking the time to read this.

Where did the Father duly curse them?


[

 

[rainbow__princess_4]

Are you saying you refuse to believe in it because you can't see it, you won't see it or there's no such thing as the "Bottomless Pit"?

Alrighty, I'll rephrase it. It doesn't exist because I've spent the last 6 years building an invisible, yet highly protective and indestructable shield around myself. Much like the one the aliens have in War of The Worlds (go the 50's movies!) which protects them against the Atom Bombs... and mine blocks out any belief or persuation in hell. Hence, I do not believe in hell, ok?

 

[§outh§tar]

wait till the seventh year, shall you?

And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created AND made.
-Genesis

 

[James R]

Greco:

I'm confused. First you say:

I consider homosexuality an error because even though the child is physically a male, some hormonal switch didnt work properly to make this male child totally male. Mentaly he behaves in an effeminate manner.

Then, straight after this, you say:

I consider homosexuality a normal natural occurence that effects approximately 5-10 % of our population.

So, which is it? Is it an error, or a normal natural occurance?

I am also intrigued as to what you think is required for a person to be "totally male". Can you please explain?

I believe the evolutionary process is blind. Nature probably made animals with three eyes but the animals found the trait inneficient and dint get a chance to reproduce. We have two eyes because it works well, any other variation doesnt.

Spiders get by with 8 (or is it 12?) eyes. Lobsters, arguably, have thousands of eyes. Many animals have no eyes, or useless eyes, and it doesn't affect their lives at all. We have two eyes because of an accident in our evolutionary past. It works well <b>for us</b>, but it is not the only solution.

There's is a also a theory that states when population density increases homosexuality increases as a safety brake to exploding populations.

That's interesting. Do you have a reference?

 

[James R]

Southstar:

I am from Ghana, West Africa and before coming to America, I had NEVER EVER EVER heard of gays. Our Ghanaian society has no gays, or does not openly speak of homosexuals.

I'm betting it's the latter rather than the former. Every human society of a decent size has an approximate 10-12% homosexual proportion.

I'm glad to hear you're not starting from a prejudiced position on this.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning. Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures"

Smack me with a stick, but I can't find any reference in here to homosexuality.

Nor a reference to the hypothesis that homosexuals go to hell.

In fact, I don't see any of the words; 'gay, homosexual, hell' in this reference.

How did you reach the conclusion that homosexuals go to hell?

 

[Greco]

So, which is it? Is it an error, or a normal natural occurance?

Nature normally makes mistakes. Natural errors occur at a certain rate which can be considered normal. An abnormal rate would be if 90% of the population was born homosexual


That's interesting. Do you have a reference?[/QUOTE]
I certainly do James.


http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa033001a.htm

Malthus argued that because of the natural human urge to reproduce human population increases geometrically (1, 2, 4, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, etc.). However, food supply, at most, can only increase arithmetically (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, etc.). Therefore, since food is an essential component to human life, population growth in any area or on the planet, if unchecked, would lead to starvation. However, Malthus also argued that there are preventative checks and positive checks on population that slow its growth and keep the population from rising exponentially for too long, but still, poverty is inescapable and will continue…..

According to Malthus, preventative checks are those that affect the birth rate and include marrying at a later age (moral restraint), abstaining from procreation, birth control, and homosexuality. Malthus, a religious chap (he worked as a clergyman in the Church of England), considered birth control and homosexuality to be vices and inappropriate (but nonetheless practiced).

http://www.peak.sfu.ca/the-peak/98-3/issue5/homosexuality.html

An alternative hypothesis would be that the trait of homosexuality is geared towards the perpetuation of the species-population control. Perhaps, a gene becomes mutated-due to stress over the competition for resources-when the density of a population increases towards a dangerous level. The birth of such individuals with this trait would then not reproduce, and if the scale was great enough, population growth could stop or become negative.

http://www.viewzone.com/homosexual.html

It is therefore possible that while the body and organs of an animal can be a "male," the brain can coincidentally be "female." This extreme reaction to maternal stress even has a very logical and natural purpose. Sensing that a population is under the stress of crowding or poor living conditions, nature provides this hormonal mechanism as a means to limit population growth and thereby reduce the cause of the stress. Homosexual behavior results in less offspring than heterosexual behavior.

 

[okinrus]

Malthus' theory was pretty much proved wrong, and England's inability to send aid after the Irish famine was caused in part by his theory. Growth rates are not entirely geometric. For example, when the country is wealthy there will be higher growth rates then if poor. I think this is more of sociological factor than a genetic one, despite starving women missing periods.

Well, I think to prove that homosexuality was caused due to population control, one would have to look at the earliest species that homosexuality occurs in--whatever that might be--and determine why it gave that species an advantage.

 

[Greco]

Perhaps I should modify my understanding of homosexual behavior and include environmental factors to the already stated biological determinism of DNA variations.

I recall a movie (the boys from Brazil) that was made about the Germans producing several clones of Hitler, hoping to eventualy reap another Fuerer. They understood that in order for another Hitler to be the same type everything in his environment had to be reproduced but alas they failed and the world was saved once again.

So what that means to me is that there maybe predisposed people that under certain enviromental triggers become homosexual.

Sorry for the Hitler comparison but that's what came to mind.

 

[Shmoo]

"you are terribly naive"

It's so shameful to see such rampant ignorance. Can you not tell I was being sarcastic in my writing? If not look again.

I'm pretty sure he knew you were being sarcastic..

 

[§outh§tar]

If you read my later post, and maybe you should, you'll find that I didn't come here with a prejudice, or at least didn't intend on starting the discussion with a bias. Besides the topic of this thread doesn't even take a stance for that matter.

Smack me with a stick, but I can't find any reference in here to homosexuality.

Nor a reference to the hypothesis that homosexuals go to hell.

In fact, I don't see any of the words; 'gay, homosexual, hell' in this reference.

How did you reach the conclusion that homosexuals go to hell?

 

[§outh§tar]

Excuse my ignorance, but can someone tell me then whether homosexuality has more of a genetic root than an environmental one?